Spezia v. De Marco
| Decision Date | 06 May 1991 |
| Parties | Peter SPEZIA, Appellant, v. Joseph DE MARCO, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Siben & Siben, Bay Shore (James J. Cruise, Jr., of counsel), for appellant.
Martin, Fallon & Mulle, Huntington (Richard C. Mulle, of counsel), for respondents.
Before BRACKEN, J.P., and KOOPER, LAWRENCE, BALLETTA and O'BRIEN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gerard, J.), entered October 24, 1989, which granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint for failure to establish that he had suffered a serious physical injury as defined by Insurance Law § 5102(d).
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.
In affidavits submitted in opposition to the defendant's motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff and his physician, an orthopedist, made a prima facie showing that the plaintiff suffers from a "permanent" 10-degree limitation in the mobility of his neck, which he can move only with pain (see, Lopez v. Senatore, 65 N.Y.2d 1017, 494 N.Y.S.2d 101, 484 N.E.2d 130; Bassett v. Romano, 126 A.D.2d 693, 511 N.Y.S.2d 298). Both the plaintiff and his orthopedist averred that this pain becomes particularly severe when he uses a computer terminal at his place of employment, with the result that his condition permits him to perform certain ordinary daily functions "only with pain" (Mooney v. Ovitt, 100 A.D.2d 702, 703, 474 N.Y.S.2d 618). The results of the plaintiff's nerve conduction velocities test purport to confirm the diagnosis of cervical radiculopathy and one of the defendants' physicians acknowledged that the plaintiff's subjective complaints were consistent with that diagnosis (cf., Ottavio v. Moore, 141 A.D.2d 806, 807, 529 N.Y.S.2d 876; Fields v. Green Bus Lines, 124 A.D.2d 640, 641, 508 N.Y.S.2d 31).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Meyer v. Afgd, Inc.
...181 A.D.2d 852, 581 N.Y.S.2d 411, 412 (N.Y.A.D.2d Dep't 1992) (markedly restricted movement of neck); Spezia v. De Marco, 173 A.D.2d 462, 570 N.Y.S.2d 87, 88 (N.Y.A.D.2d Dep't 1991) (10 degree limitation in neck mobility); Guerra v. Fuez, 145 A.D.2d 873, 536 N.Y.S.2d 200, 201 (N.Y.A.D.3d De......
-
Antorino v. Mordes
...512 N.E.2d 309; Dubois v. Simpson, 182 A.D.2d 993, 582 N.Y.S.2d 561; Cesar v. Felix, 181 A.D.2d 852, 581 N.Y.S.2d 411; Spezia v. De Marco, 173 A.D.2d 462, 570 N.Y.S.2d 87; Bates v. Peeples, 171 A.D.2d 635, 566 N.Y.S.2d In addition, the physician's assertion that the plaintiff continued to e......
-
Cavallaro v. Baker
...the meaning of the No-Fault Law (see, Lopez v. Senatore, 65 N.Y.2d 1017, 1020, 494 N.Y.S.2d 101, 484 N.E.2d 130; Spezia v. De Marco, 173 A.D.2d 462, 463, 570 N.Y.S.2d 87; Rotondi v. Horning, 168 A.D.2d 944, 565 N.Y.S.2d 636). The conflicting opinions of the medical experts raise issues of c......
-
McGovern v. Walls
...(see, Hochlerin v. Tolins, 186 A.D.2d 538, 588 N.Y.S.2d 795; Pagano v. Kingsbury, 182 A.D.2d 268, 587 N.Y.S.2d 692; Spezia v. De Marco, 173 A.D.2d 462, 570 N.Y.S.2d 87; Bates v. Peeples, 171 A.D.2d 635, 566 N.Y.S.2d 659; Morsellino v. Frankel, 161 A.D.2d 748, 556 N.Y.S.2d 103; Lynch v. Adir......
-
Recent New York appellate decisions will impact municipal tort litigation.
...Kim v. Cohen, 618 N.Y.S.2d 386, 387 (App. Div. 1994); Georgia v. Ramautar, 579 N.Y.S.2d 743, 744 (App. Div. 1992); Spezia v. DeMarco, 570 N.Y.S.2d 87, 88 (App. Div. 1991). (78.) Grossman, 707 N.Y.S.2d at 237. (79.) Id. (80.) Id. (81.) Id. (citing Pagano v. Kingsbury, 587 N.Y.S.2d 692, 693-9......
-
Chapter Twenty-Four
...Dep’t 2004).[3103] . 175 A.D.2d 204, 572 N.Y.S.2d 79 (2d Dep’t 1991). [3104] . 174 A.D.2d 663, 571 N.Y.S.2d 525 (2d Dep’t 1991).[3105] . 173 A.D.2d 462, 570 N.Y.S.2d 87 (2d Dep’t 1991).[3106] . 180 A.D.2d 925, 580 N.Y.S.2d 510 (3d Dep’t 1992).[3107] . 140 A.D.2d 428, 528 N.Y.S.2d 130 (2d De......